42 U.S.C. § 1396f
Observance of religious beliefs
Nothing in this subchapter shall be construed to require any State which has a plan approved under this subchapter to compel any person to undergo any medical screening, examination, diagnosis, or treatment or to accept any other health care or services provided under such plan for any purpose (other than for the purpose of discovering and preventing the spread of infection or contagious disease or for the purpose of protecting environmental health), if such person objects (or, in case such person is a child, his parent or guardian objects) thereto on religious grounds.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3
cases, 1972–1996 · leading case: Powers v. State Dep't of Soc. Welfare, 493 P.2d 590 (Kan. 1972).
Powers v. State Dep't of Soc. Welfare, 493 P.2d 590 (Kan. 1972). “The two sections are 42 U. S. C. § 1396f and 42 U. S. C. § 715 which are nearly identical in phraseology and which provide as follows: “Nothing in this subchapter shall be construed to require any State which has a plan approved under this subchapter to compel any person to…”
Child.'s Healthcare is a Legal Duty, Inc. v. Vladeck, 938 F. Supp. 1466 (D. Minn. 1996). “§ 1395a; 18 42 U.S.C. § 1396f. 19 More specifically, the legislative history demonstrates that the challenged provisions of the Acts were the product of careful congressional deliberations.”
Bodimetric Health Servs., Inc. v. Aetna Life & Cas., 903 F.2d 480 (7th Cir. 1990). “42 U.S.C.A. § 1396f(a)(2)(C) (West Supp.1990).”
42 U.S.C. § 1396f(a)(2)(C): 1 case
Bodimetric Health Servs., Inc. v. Aetna Life & Cas., 903 F.2d 480 (7th Cir. 1990). “42 U.S.C.A. § 1396f(a)(2)(C) (West Supp.1990).”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.